The
basic procedural history underlying these appeals was set out
in W.L.K. I, 175 So.3d at 654-55:

"[The father] and S.F. ('the mother') were
involved in a relationship between April and July 2012; they
lived together in the father's house in Middleburg,
Florida, during that period. The mother became pregnant early
in the relationship, and she and the father had begun
preparing for the baby by purchasing baby items. However, the
mother left the father in July 2012, and, after she broke
into the father's house and stole several items, the
father swore out a warrant against her. The mother was
arrested, and, after that, the father lost contact with her.
In December 2012, the father, who is in the United States
Navy, contacted an attorney in the Judge Advocate General
about his situation; that attorney referred the father to a
nonmilitary attorney, who assisted the father by instituting
a paternity and custody action in a Florida court in January
2013. The father registered with the putative father registry
in Florida. The father attempted to locate the mother at
nearby hospitals on January 18, 2013, the expected date of
delivery. However, the father was unable to locate the
mother.

"On January 9, 2013, the mother gave birth to [the
child] in Montgomery, Alabama. The mother had consented to an
adoption of the child by [the prospective adoptive parents],
who were present at the birth and who took the child home
from the hospital. On January 29, 2013, the prospective
adoptive parents filed a petition to adopt the child in the
Jefferson Probate Court.

"The father first learned of the birth of the child in
Alabama on March 1, 2013. After he was served with an amended
petition to adopt the child on March 25, 2013, and upon the
advice of his Florida counsel, the father sought legal
counsel in Alabama. He filed a contest to the adoption
petition and a motion to dismiss the adoption petition on
April 11, 2013.

"As required by Ala. Code 1975, § 26-10A-24(a), the
probate court held a contested hearing on the father's
contest to the adoption petition on September 26, 2013. At
issue was whether the father had impliedly consented to the
child's adoption pursuant to the theory of 'prebirth
abandonment, ' under which consent to an adoption may be
implied based on abandonment if a father fails, 'with
reasonable knowledge of the pregnancy, to offer financial
and/or emotional support for a period of six months prior to
the birth.' Ala. Code 1975, § 26-10A-9(a)(1). After
hearing the testimony of the father and T.C.M., the probate
court entered an order on March 19, 2014, concluding that the
father had not impliedly consented to the adoption and
specifically rejecting the contention that the father's
conduct had amounted to an abandonment of the mother during
her pregnancy."

This
court determined in W.L.K. I that the probate court
had been required by Ala. Code 1975, § 26-10A-24(d), to
dismiss the prospective adoptive parents' adoption
petition after it had decided the father's adoption
contest in his favor. 175 So.3d at 659. After the resolution
of the father's first petition for the writ of mandamus
in W.L.K. I, the probate court failed to enter a
judgment dismissing the prospective adoptive parents'
adoption petition, so the father filed a second petition for
the writ of mandamus to compel the probate court to do so.
W.L.K. II, ___ So.3d at ___. This court ordered the
probate court to enter a judgment awarding the prospective
adoptive parents reimbursement for the costs of caring for
the child in compliance with W.L.K. I and §
26-10A-24(d), id. at ___, which the probate court
did on October, 3, 2016, after the prospective adoptive
parents' petition for the writ of certiorari in
W.L.K. II was denied by the Alabama Supreme Court.
See Ex parte T.C.M., [Ms. 1150280, September 30,
2016] ___ So.3d ___ (Ala. 2016). The prospective adoptive
parents have appealed the October 3, 2016, judgment, arguing
that the probate court erred by not concluding that the
father's consent to the adoption was irrevocably implied
under Ala. Code 1975, § 26-10A-9(a)(5), by his failure
to register with the Alabama Putative Father Registry,
codified at Ala. Code 1975, § 26-10C-1, and that the
evidence does not support the probate court's conclusion
that the father did not abandon the child under §
26-10A-9(a)(1). The father has filed a cross-appeal of the
probate court's October 3, 2016, judgment, seeking its
reversal insofar as it assessed against him one-half of the
$4, 200 guardian ad litem fee and "all additional costs
of court" related to the action.[1]

In its
judgment, the probate court recounted the history of the
parents' brief relationship. The probate court found that
the father and the mother had begun planning for the arrival
of the child after they learned of the mother's
pregnancy. The probate court found that the father was
unaware of the mother's reasons for leaving the home they
shared on July 5, 2012, but commented that the parties had
had an argument about the mother's smoking during her
pregnancy. The probate court recounted that the father had
discovered that the mother had broken into the house and
stolen some of his property and that, as a result, the mother
was arrested.

The
probate court found that the father had not had contact
information for the mother after her arrest and that he had
taken legal steps to safeguard his parental rights, including
seeking advice from the Judge Advocate General, who referred
him to a nonmilitary attorney, who instituted a paternity and
custody action on the father's behalf. The probate court
also found that the father had registered with the Florida
Putative Father Registry. The probate court noted that the
father had learned that the mother had been planning to have
the child adopted by a couple from New York. In addition, the
probate court found that the father, once he learned of the
child's birth in Alabama and the pending adoption
proceeding, had registered with the Alabama Putative Father
Registry and had contacted the prospective adoptive parents
to seek visitation with the child. Based on the testimony and
documentary evidence, the probate court concluded that the
father had not impliedly consented to the adoption of the
child.

The
Prospective Adoptive Parents' Appeal

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The
prospective adoptive parents first argue that the
father&#39;s failure to timely register with the Alabama
Putative Father Registry resulted in his irrevocable implied
consent to the adoption under &sect; 26-10A-9(a)(5) and Ala.
Code 1975, &sect; 26-10C-1(i), and, thus, that his consent to
the adoption was not required under Ala. Code 1975, &sect;
26-10A-7(a)(5). The prospective adoptive parents rely on the
general rule that adoption statutes require strict adherence
to their requirements. See Anderson v. Hetherinton,
560 So.2d 1078, 1079-80 (Ala. Civ. App. 1990). They ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.